Case ID:167684

Parties: None

Date Delivered: None

Case Type: None

Court: None

Judges: None

Citation: None


Republic v National Employment Authority & another;Ex-Parte Applicant: Satmar Technologies Company Limited & 73 others [2020] eKLR

Case Metadata

Case Number:

Judicial Review Application E1148 of 2020

Parties:

Republic v National Employment Authority & another;Ex Parte Applicant: Satmar Technologies Company Limited & 73 others

Date Delivered:

04 Dec 2020

Case Class:

Civil

Court:

High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)

Case Action:

Ruling

Judge(s):

Pauline Nyamweya

Citation:

Republic v National Employment Authority & another;Ex-Parte Applicant: Satmar Technologies Company Limited & 73 others [2020] eKLR

Court Division:

Judicial Review

County:

Nairobi

Disclaimer:

The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION NO. E1148 OF 2020

REPUBLIC..............................................................................................APPLICANT

VERSUS

NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT AUTHORITY..........................1

ST

RESPONDENT

NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRAINING AUTHORITY.......2

ND

RESPONDENT

EX PARTE APPLICANT:

SATMAR TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY LIMITED & 73 OTHERS

RULING

1. Satmar Technologies Company Limited, the

ex parte

Applicant herein has filed an application by way of a Chamber Summons dated 4

th

December 2020, seeking the following orders:

1. THAT this matter be certified urgent and heard expeditiously on a priority basis.

2. THAT the court be pleased to grant leave to apply for Judicial Review.

3. THAT the grant of leave to operate as a stay of the Respondent’s decision which directed all training institutions duly accredited to offer the Homecare Management Course from extending the period of the said course to thirty (30) days from the initial two (2) weeks.

4. THAT the costs of this application.

2. The said application is supported by a verifying affidavit sworn on 4

th

December 2020 by Virginia Njoki Murigi, the

ex parte

Applicant’s Director.

3. A number of observations and findings make it impossible to deal with this application.

4. Firstly, I note that leave is being sought to apply for judicial review, and no specific judicial review orders are indicated in the application. This Court is accordingly not in a position to determine if such leave is justified. Order 53 Rule 1(1) and (2) in this respect envisages the specific relief sought by a party and grounds thereof to be indicated in an application for leave, and provides as follows:

“(1) No application for an order of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari shall be made unless leave therefor has been granted in accordance with this rule.

(2) An application for such leave as aforesaid shall be made ex parte to a judge in chambers, and shall be accompanied by a statement setting out the name and description of the applicant, the relief sought, and the grounds on which it is sought, and by affidavits verifying the facts relied on.”

5. Secondly, the

ex parte

Applicant has not provided evidence of the impugned decision that is the subject of its application, as the said communication which is averred to in its verifying affidavit to be in Annexure “VNM6”, has not been attached. Thirdly, the application is brought by the

ex parte

Applicant and 73 other parties who are not named or known, and there is an authority annexed in this regard that is not signed.

6. Lastly, the

ex parte

Applicant’s application is not supported by a statement as required by Order 53 Rule1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, and is therefore incompetently filed.

7. In the circumstances, I hereby direct and order as follows:

I.

The

ex parte

Applicant’s

Chamber Summons dated 4

th

December 2020, is hereby struck out for being incompetently filed.

II.

There shall be

no order as to costs.

8. Orders accordingly.

DATED AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI THIS 4

TH

DAY OF DECEMBER 2020

P. NYAMWEYA

JUDGE

Meta Info:

{'Case Number:': 'Judicial Review Application E1148 of 2020', 'Parties:': 'Republic v National Employment Authority & another;Ex Parte Applicant: Satmar Technologies Company Limited & 73 others', 'Date Delivered:': '04 Dec 2020', 'Case Class:': 'Civil', 'Court:': 'High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)', 'Case Action:': 'Ruling', 'Judge(s):': 'Pauline Nyamweya', 'Citation:': 'Republic v National Employment Authority & another;Ex-Parte Applicant: Satmar Technologies Company Limited & 73 others [2020] eKLR', 'Court Division:': 'Judicial Review', 'County:': 'Nairobi', 'Disclaimer:': 'The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information'}